Bien Agiter

Jan 16, 2014

Even though we’re only 16 days into 2014, it’s been an
interesting year for the NHL. The critics of the shootout have become a little
more vocal, the players have been a little more sensitive, and the 2013
momentum of some teams has diminished significantly. A lot of the kafuffle has
gathered around the Olympics in Sochi, Russia, but whatever the derivations may
be, all of it has provoked some hockey fans to ask some important questions.
Here are a few:

·What’s
with all the thin-skinned hockey players? – Everyone understands that
athletes have a lot of pride. And it’s no surprise that most human beings take
an inherent dislike to being criticized. But acting dejected because you didn’t
make an elite selection of athletes for the Olympics flies in the face of the
toughness reputation most pro-hockey players enjoy. I wouldn’t appreciate being
labeled “un-intense” either… but as HBO’s 24-7 Winter Classic series
demonstrated, it’s far from the worst thing a hockey player has ever been told.
The scathing blue streak of ass-rippings endured by every player in those
dressing rooms shown would make a Mongolian drill sergeant feel like they went
too far. This is the equivalent of being stabbed, but complaining about the
unpleasant demeanor of the assailant. One would think, (and it’s been said by
other commentators) that hockey players would be a little tougher than some
have demonstrated lately. Suck it up boys – did you think they passed on you
because you were completely awesome?

·Why do
“the media” eat their own? -When a
journalist gets embedded behind the scenes, like Scott Burnside did with the
U.S. Olympic Hockey team selection process, one would assume the point is to get the real
story and pass it on to the public. The effort is made… the money is spent… the
questions are asked… but when the truth finally comes out, and the answer isn’t
some milquetoast pap, the first ones to cry foul are the other members of the
media. Hearing Kathryn Tappan ask a player, for the umpteenth time, “how
important is a win on the road?” is not my idea of compelling journalism.
Softballs like this should be saved for children under six. To hear media
members saying they are shocked that the NHL didn’t have editorial control is
like being angry at your doctor for telling you that you have the clap. If the media wants to bury their head in the sand, or live in a
Pollyanna-ville where nary a discouraging word is uttered, then stop wasting
everyone’s time - and your own money - shoving microphones into the faces of the
players and management. We live in a world where reporters spend hours asking
players what’s wrong with their team, and then, the rare time a player says
something like, “Because our coach and owner suck eggs!” a veritable platoon of
other reporters spend the next 72 hours chastising them for “speaking out of
school.” So you have to ask, “Why the hell did you pose the question if you
only wanted a BS answer?

·Why do
some people get so upset about folks second-guessing the Olympic hockey team
selections? – Yeah-yeah, I know, it’s a woefully difficult job to select an
elite Olympic team roster from a wealth of NHL talent. Sure, sure,
second-guessing is easy. But lighten up, Francis, it’s just a discussion. Some
hockey fans LIKE to do it. It’s fun for them. There’s a giant industry built
around talking sports. (Though sometimes I wonder why) Let the fans have their giggles and grumble about who should
and shouldn’t have been snubbed. Either that, or tell us, honestly, why certain players were picked and others weren’t. (See
previous question) I’d seriously like to know. Treating this like the old sausage
proverb is gutless. Why wasn’t Claude Giroux selected? Tell us the truth – the
speculation will decrease. And even if it does not – who cares? Call off the fun
police. At least the topic has gained relevancy… the NHL would complaining much
more if it didn’t.

·If you
have to make even more changes to the overtime format, then isn’t it a failure?
– There’s a lot of people in high levels of the NHL who don’t like the
shootout, but the Politburo at the league offices have scared them into
relative silence. I’d love to turn the light off on this glowing puck, but
let’s face it; the fans seem acceptant of the gimmick so they’ll likely never
get rid of it.Still, complaints
continue to be muttered under breath in all corners of the game. The “confusion
of the OTL point” complaint. The “skill competition” complaint, etc., Which
leads me to wonder, if you have to start discussing the possibilities of
pulling more players off the ice, or changing the rules again, then what did
the format really solve? In the same way that eliminating “clutching and
grabbing” through the neutral zone has raised new problems (a higher incidence
of injuries some believe) the gimmick of shootouts in the NHL has posed new
criticisms. After some time under the shootout format, the benefits are
underwhelming. In short, there’s still a problem. Do we need to go with
international size rinks to open up the play and reduce injuries? Do we go
3-on-3 in overtime play? What’s wrong with a tie? It works for Soccer!? Or how
about counting shots on goal in the five minute overtime frame – sudden-death
rules, but in the event of no goal… the team with the most shots on net wins?
There are almost as many suggestions as there are teams in the league, and that
by itself, the most revealing thing about the "solution."

·The NHL
has changed the rules to provoke higher scoring, but why not its mindset? –
Over the last decade, the NHL has done number of things to hobble the
goaltender position, all in an effort to increase scoring. (And I’ve made fun
of those things before.) But unfortunately for net-minders, the coaches, fans,
and pundits have not changed their
expectations for statistical success in that position. Coaches still pull a
goalie for letting in three goals. The league limits the size of pads and the
goalie’s play zone… yet the teams still expect a 91+ save percentage. Do we
want higher scoring or not? No – evidently that’s just a loose aspiration.What seems more important is to raise the
bar for goaltenders and keep the scoring as low – or perhaps lower.

·What good
is it to go to an outdoor hockey game, if you are essentially watching the game
on a big screen TV? – It’s probably cool to soak in the big audience
atmosphere of an outdoor hockey event the size of the Winter Classic. But how
many of those fans (and you could ask the same question of any fan watching a
Dallas Cowboys home game) could actually see
the game on the ice? If you weren't braving sub-zero temps and doing your best
to develop a good case of the piles, I might see the whole thing as positive,
but under the circumstances, it seemed to add up to all the fun of watching an
ant farm… from 50 paces away. Hey, whatever floats your boat! Who am I to
judge? I enjoyed the game, too… from my couch… in Dallas.

There’s sure to be
more controversy involving the NHL between now and June, and again, much of
that will likely revolve around the Winter Olympics and the Department of
Player Safety. But most importantly, many of these questions will remain
unanswered. Like a whack-a-mole game that keeps adding holes.

Mar 8, 2013

This is not to suggest
anyone should watch this television twaddle, but if you do, this drinking game will ensure you
get hopelessly smashed, puke, and get a hangover. All of which is a better fate
than simply watching it.

Heidi recaps format
of the show = 1 drink

(This is any time she states the obvious rules of the show –
i.e. “One person will be asked to leave.”Yeah, Heidi we figured that out after the 1st episode. This will get you
hammered even if you follow no other rules)

Gunn says the word, “Designers”
= all yell “Designers!” in lisp voice and take 1 drink.

(Anyone who doesn’t yell – takes 2 extra drinks)

Gunn says the word, “Fabulous”
= 1 drink

Any contestant says
the word, “Fabulous” = 1 drink

When they pause JUST before revealing a winner or loser = 1 drink

Whenever they cut to
break before revealing a winner or loser = 2 drinks

Contestant complains
they didn’t have enough time = 1 drink

Contestant gets catty
about another designer = 1 drink

Contestant explains how
they have to “remain true to themselves” = 1 drink

Aug 27, 2012

The victims were part of a group that had gathered for a celebration involving music and dancing.

Don't get me wrong - I'd usually advocate people being punished for dancing, but the whole "beheading" thing is over the top.

I mean, you've got to live in Waco to find this kind of distaste for dancing.

That said, I MIGHT be on-board if the people who took part in either the planning or execution of the dancing that accompanies almost EVERY stinking pop-star video, (see examples below) were to be summarily thrown up on. A catch-all rule - Parodies excluded.

Aug 3, 2012

As much as the "Gun Nuts" assert that guns don’t kill people
any more than forks make people fat, one would assume they could also agree with the legalization of drugs.

In my experiences, this is rarely the case. Which is not to
say there aren’t the odd 2nd Amendment yahoos that would agree with
the concept, but I can’t often find them. In fact, the pro-firearm individuals
I encounter seem to be the same people who want to outlaw every drug
from Marijuana to Muscatel.

I don’t get it. The same argument applies. The drugs don’t take themselves. They don’t
crawl into the mouths or veins of the unsuspecting. So why all the restrictions?

To the NRA cowboys, the thought of jailing a meth-lab
chemist should be as preposterous as arresting a machinist for making a rifle
barrel. And yet, it’s not. There’s no hue and cry. No demonstrations. Nothing.

On the subject of gun control, these people scream out terms like, liberty,
self determination, oppression, and privacy invasion. But for drug control,
they are mostly tacit.

Federal rules for gun ownership are vehemently vilified as
indecent government control, but government control over when you can have a
beer, when you can dial your cell phone, how high your pants have to be
pulled up at the mall, or where, and when you, can ogle at a stripper, gets zero concern.

Double standard.

Look – I’m not against guns. I’ve always felt that, in a
perfect world, everyone should have a gun. Trick is, this IS NOT a perfect
world. You got your psychos out there, your jilted boyfriends with a taste for
vengeance, your deluded fanboys with orange hair and twisted Batman fixations.

It sucks, but it’s true. And we just have to live with the fact
that if you want guns, you gotta deal with the jack asses who abuse them.

Here is another argument that makes no sense: "If you take away
the guns from the people, only the criminals will have them."

Well, true… but NOT true.

The cops will still have them - and the military. (And last
I heard, criminals are mostly “people” …aside
from the odd extortionist bear and safecracking wombats.)But for arguments sake, let’s say that ONLY “criminals” could go to a gun store and buy a gun...?

What are the chances any gun salesman woul say,

“Okay buddy, as long as you’re NOT a law-abiding
citizen, because then I’d have to tell you to go pound salt.” (Could this really happen? Gun right gurus would have you believe it might.)

But say it COULD. So then you would only have two kinds of people with guns. The
cops/military (who should have them) and... the riff raff.
Well, to me it’s like color
coding the bad guys.
I.e., consider the following litmus test:
Does the person have a gun? Yes? Is he a police
officer? No. – BINGO, he’s under arrest.

Simpler criteria at some level, isn’t it?

I’m mostly kidding, but the original argument is still weak.
What’s wrong with knowing who the criminals are? This is not even touching on the concept that
having a gun is one thing, but having a military-grade, rapid fire, death
cannon is entirely another.

And then there's the argument that the military and the cops having the
only guns, or better guns, is a danger to our freedom.

A valid point…. IN THE 18th CENTURY!

Nowadays, taking up arms against the police or military would be parallel to the coups in Zimbabwe.

Seriously? Do we really think we’ll have to start shooting
the police? Is this an actual concern for you deluded bastards? After all, it goes
on in Germany, France, and Norway soooo often, it’s bound to happen here right?
Give your head a shake.

Paranoia is a sad basis for a system of government - but
have at it, you bloodthirsty bullet-heads. I’m not really interested in changing your
mind…

Nov 22, 2010

I'm pleasantly astonished that Warren Buffett finally fessed up to ABC News' Christiane Amanpour that tax breaks for the rich don't help the economy.

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you," Buffett said. "But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on."

God bless him. But it won't make a lick of difference.

Republicans, at least, will NEVER be convinced.

Tell them that pink angels have signified that the end of the world is nigh, and they'll be stocking up on distilled water and handguns by week's end.

Try to explain to them that a government can't expect to pay off a massive national debt and still meaningfully

cut taxes, and they'll give you the hand... or worse.

Tell them you want to spend trillions of tax dollars on fighting a destructive war and they'll just smile and yell Hoorah!

Tell them you need tax money to improve education... and you're gonna be labelled with a bleeding heart... or nose.

As cool as it is that Buffet and others of his ilk are testifying to what some of us have always known to be obvious, it shouldn't be expected to have any affect on the bulletproof biases of the American Right Wing.

Jul 20, 2010

Somewhere… in a heaven many of us (and perhaps all) will never see, Rod Serling is taking a long drag off of the cool, menthol cigarette he always smokes. (Because it doesn’t ever burn out, and it will never give him cancer… again).

And he’s got a wry smile on his puss… and he’s thinking, “See, I fucking told you.”

He’s referring to Taliban Monkeys .

A story so absurd, it makes me want to run screaming like Charlton Heston after his rocket crashed. So daft... that I’m tempted to buy a one-way ticket off this rock – or eat a bullet.

We’ve always known this “human civilization” thing gets crazy from time to time. New Home Depot’s open up next to well-established Lowe’s, country singers marry hockey players, and Winona Ryder gets called, "a gifted actress…"

Sure, we’ve all seen monkeys shanking people who refused them the standard banana payoff, and Lord knows kittens are being trained by the Department of Agriculture to drink human plasma and use combs, But Taliban Monkeys?

(Rod rises from his angelic barcolounger and chuckles, then walks off into the clouds)

What do you do when it all gets this goofy? When being drunk brings a more grounded state of mind... and the reminder of your own mortality seems like a stable, calming influence?

Mar 4, 2010

In December of 1993, Neoconservative publisher and pundit William Kristol wrote a five-page memo explaining that if the Clinton health care plan was implemented, and actually improves the lives of Americans, the success of the program would badly damage the Republican Party by improving Americans’ relationship with government. Therefore, the plan must be stopped before it can begin. Kristol writes in part: “Passage of the Clinton health care plan, in any form, would guarantee and likely make permanent an unprecedented federal intrusion into and disruption of the American economy—and the establishment of the largest federal entitlement program since Social Security. It’s [sic] success would signal a rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy at the very moment we have begun rolling back that idea in other areas.… The long term political effects of a successful Clinton health care bill will be even worse—much worse. It will relegitimize middle-class dependency for ‘security’ on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government…”

In December 14, 2000, HCA Inc., the largest for-profit hospital chain in the US, reached a settlement with the Justice Department over allegations of having defrauded the government. As part of the agreement, the company pleaded guilty to 14 criminal counts and agreed to pay more than $840 million in criminal fines, civil penalties, and damages. The Justice Department’s investigation found that the company had employed a variety of schemes to falsely charge or overcharge for services provided to patients covered by federal health plans. HCA billed Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs for lab tests that were not medically necessary or ordered by physicians. It billed the government for non-reimbursable expenses by disguising them as reimbursable “community education” expenses or as “management fees.” Other violations included using incorrect diagnostic codes when billing the government in order to increase its revenue, billing for services rendered to patients who did not qualify to receive them, and billing for services that were never performed. Of the total amount settled upon, $95 million is for violations committed by two HCA subsidiaries, Columbia Homecare Group Inc. and Columbia Management Companies Inc. The two companies had engaged in cost report fraud, fraudulent billing, paying kickbacks to doctors for referrals, and paying kickbacks in connection with the purchase and sale of home health agencies.

So here we are, painfully close to reforming Health Care in this country, and the public – and even some Dem reps – are defending the doctors and healthcare companies who have been scamming us for decades. The health insurance companies themselves are being ripped off by fraudulent and inflated healthcare costs, but they don’t care, because ultimately they can pass the expense on to companies and the insured.

Jan 6, 2010

My wife made a good point the other day. We – and by that she means her and I – only need the current world conditions to hold steady for another 50 years. She was being optimistic, of course. Because we really only need it to hold steady for another 30 years at the most.

She was right in principle though.And the thought made me feel a little better.

A couple of years ago, frustrated with the bizarre dogma of Texas republicans and perplexed at the chronic state of denial concerning conservation, we decided that, because we didn’t have children, it really wasn’t a big issue as long as we could breathe the air and enjoy reasonable liberty up until the end of our dwindling lives.

You ever get that feeling… when things are going crazy around you… that you just need to back away and extricate yourself from the madness? I suspect it’s this emotion that prompts crazy mountain men to drop out of society and begin enjoying a rodent-based diet.

The truth is, even if you admit your own foibles, you never truly believe you’re as nuts as those around you. You know some people are stranger than others, but when you look at the collective… sometimes… you get scared – or tired of the chaos – and just want end your involvement. You realize you’re just never going to cure the craziness. Then, if you’re realistic with yourself, you ponder the possibility that you just might not “get it”.For some, this makes them want to understand it all. And that is admirable. But for others… sometimes… you just don’t WANT to “get it”.

It’s that way for me when it comes to the financial greed of corporate America, global political conflict, lack of social responsibility, and the NFL. I see the valiant efforts of anti-whaling activists trying to save a beautiful endangered species, only to be rammed by the Asian whaler they are protesting. I see self-serving belligerence of countries trying to scuttle a new "Kyoto-type" accord. I see the fear mongering of corporations influencing citizens to forego their own health interests in order to protect their profits and I, ultimately, tire from the confusion, wondering why anyone embraces the futility of resistance.

There’s no need to fight a “good fight” anymore. We're just going to hunker down and wait for our time to be done. We, who have no progeny, have no skin in the game past a certain time window. After that, it’s out of our hands. Perhaps it always has been. But you folks with kids, who drive Hummers to the coffee shop and think global warming is a liberal plot to undermine business... this is on you. Good luck with it.

Nov 16, 2009

“For God’s sake man,” Helmut screamed, “What are you doing? This is the kitchen. Take that shit into the basement.”

Then Helmut lit up a Dominican robusto to clear the pungent scent of unleaded regular.

---

In the real world, most fools are not to be trusted without certified supervision. This is widely agreed. But in the case of the "world powers," we're going to have to slip some sedatives into the milk and hope for the best until "The Inquisition."

Tracking the work of a truly gifted serial killer can be hard, but not when you consider the fact that so few are even mildly intelligent. I’m not talking about your Specks or DeSalvos here; I mean the ones who hold office in countries from here to Zimbabwe.

Mugabe, for instance, is a cold, bloodthirsty bastard who demonstrates the same delusions as Ted Bundy, but with exponentially more political backing. Politically, by the way, Bundy was an active and devout Republican – which jived perfectly with his endemic hate for life.

The sham elections in Afghanistan boggle the mind for sheer, uncalled-for cheating, and still the U.N. fails to acknowledge the folly. Selective reasoning? Or is it that these killers are really so clever as to fool the collective brain trust?

Nov 10, 2009

In 2012 here’s what’s REALLY going to happen. The United Nations, hobbled by the conflicting needs of the members of the Security Council, will dissolve and be replaced with a game of Bridge. Countries will gather regularly to play cards, smoke cigars, and BS about world affairs. It’ll be twice as fun as the regular UN Dog & Pony show and will likely get as much accomplished. Perhaps more.

After a few glasses of rum, anything could happen, and some good deals regarding peace could come from the more relaxed stage. Of course, certain wars will inevitably be started after certain representatives get really greased up.

This will quickly lead to an oil crisis, which is inevitable anyway, and Kathy Griffin will take office as Governor of California after Arnold is ousted with extreme prejudice. Unable to go on the incredible shopping sprees she thought she would be entitled to, (because the state is bankrupt) Griffin will angrily move all Ukrainians into prison camps -- just to get even with someone.

Starbucks will release tainted coffee, but it will have no effect on the population (except in Seattle) because by 2012 the world will be, in fact, “Running on Dunkin”.Jesus will then return to earth, take one look at his most devout followers, and turn away with his Jesus face buried in his holy hands.

“Nice job, Peter,” He’ll say in a tired voice, then he’ll walk away… gather a small group of people…. which will include 100 toddlers of varied nationality, Paul McCartney, Steve Martin, Sean Connery, Sting, James Taylor, the four hottest nuns he can think of, and Kelly Preston… then drop a giant shit-bomb on the earth four hours after he takes Sting and the rest to Happy Heaven.

Once the smoke clears, he might smite the roach population down to a dull roar and deposit Steve, the guys, and all the nuns in Tuscany… and tell them to start over. He’ll warn Sir Sean (newly young again) to temper the anger and be a King to the remaining survivors. Then he’ll leave them with a poster of Dean Martin, a CD player, and a burned disk with Wish You Were Here and Dean’s greatest hits… because he thinks they were the only thing from the old world worth saving.

Then he books out with McCartney (One of GOD’s favorites) and Kelly Preston (Cuz she’s an angel) and says to the survivors, “Tell the Ukrainians to play dumb till I get back.”

I would like to start this letter off by congratulating you on what I believe to be an excellent effort to carry out the duties of your office in the face of some challenging opposition.

The responsibilities involved in being the Commander-in-Chief for the most powerful nation in the world are more than I can imagine. I hope you continue to maintain your energy, optimism and measured decision making skills throughout your term.

I am writing to submit my opinion regarding your policy as it pertains to the conflict in Afghanistan. While I certainly do not claim to possess even a small portion of the understanding you and your administration have for this issue, I do feel compelled, and perhaps even justified, to express my concerns over the continuance and possible escalation of U.S. military involvement there.

Your decision to gradually withdraw U.S. military presence from Iraq could not have been an easy decision, even with the support of many Americans.

It seems to me – and I suspect regular folks like me can never really be certain – to be a decision that has the best interests of Americans, and the world, at heart. However, I can’t help but wonder why the same logic does not apply to the conflict in Afghanistan.

Perhaps this letter serves as less of a comment and more of a question. Why not cease military action in Afghanistan? The resources (both human and monetary) it takes to continue this conflict seem dangerously high. Yet the results seem elusive, and the benefits seem dubious.

I certainly understand that there is a desire to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice for crimes against the U.S. and the world. I’m aware that there are Afghan citizens who will benefit from NATO military involvement in their country. However, it seems clear that, as the Soviets learned, there can be little sound profit in trying to alter what appears to be the immutable political propensity of Afghanistan.

Continued occupation by military forces in Afghanistan seems to only serve as a galvanizing element of mistrust and resentment towards America and other western industrialized nations.

So again, with due humility, I ask: Why aren’t you working to end U.S military involvement in Afghanistan similar to the way you are working to end it in Iraq?

Sep 29, 2009

15 25 Ways to Annoy Your Job Interviewer

On September 28, 2009, Karen Burns wrote a handy little article, on Yahoo, about the 15 things you shouldn’t do during a job interview.

She pointed out that, “everyone knows you shouldn't light up a cigarette at a job interview, or text your closest friend, or eat, or bring your dog, or show up drunk, or challenge the interviewer to arm wrestle." But she also pointed out some less obvious ones like:

Gum chewing

Hair twirling

Slouching

Avoiding eye contact

Knee jiggling or finger drumming

Yawning (or sighing)

Playing with your pen

Checking your cell phone

Nail biting

Sniffling

Picking at, rubbing, or scratching any part of your body

Waving your hands while speaking

Tugging at your cuffs or at the hem of your skirt (Which is especially bad if you’re a dude)

Resting your chin in your hand (Or your hand on THEIR chin)

Smiling too much or not smiling at all

But here are a few others you should definitely avoid:

Smelling like gasoline

Answering the interviewer’s questions in baby talk

R

eferring to computers as “The magic TV boxes”

Bringing a hooker with you to the interview – (Although, this has been known to be somewhat effective for Wall Street and Government job interviews.)

Dressing in clothing that reveals any part of your hard won Aryan Nation tattoo

Offering the interviewer "a little toot for the snoot"

Dragging a bloodied seal into the interview room. (I realize this is an annoying rule, but your interviewer may be one of them “Liberals”)

Waving a pistol around – (This one is as bad as waving your hands, but perhaps a little more noticeable)

Confessing that you murdered someone (Let them figure that one out themselves)

Masturbation*

Keep these helpful “DON’T DOs” in mind, and you’ll be one step closer to that important new career.

Sep 24, 2009

UNITED NATIONS – With President Barack Obama presiding over an historic session, the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a U.S.-sponsored resolution Thursday committing all nations to work for a nuclear weapons-free world.

Russia, China and developing nations supported the measure, giving it global clout and strong political backing.

It would be a brilliant gesture… if it there was any hope of it working. In truth, you could almost laugh at the useless absurdity of it. Several decades after the world first experienced the dramatic devastation of the technology, and scores of years after the gripping tensions caused by the cold war, we see the UN calling for a nuclear weapons-free world. It’s taken this largely impotent organization that long to agree on something, so painfully obvious, that it should have been signed and settled over 40 years ago. But I guess progress, even this slow, has to be appreciated at some level.

So now what? With the combined clout of members present in this assembly, one (who is grossly naïve) may think that the day when nuclear weapons are no longer a constant threat to our tenuously positioned species might be somewhere in sight.

But that would be a piteous mistake… and one that very few people with more than a fifth grade education would make. If the UN had one quarter of the influence that it was intended to have, the reality would be different. Korea would have ditched their efforts to play a dangerous nuclear development bluff and the US would never have invaded Iraq.

Outside of keeping the Greeks and the Cypriotes away from throttling each other (by only mere inches) the UN is effectively a dog and pony show put on to pay lip service to world order and global egalitarianism. And it’s a shame, because there is so much potential in a world coalition of good sense.

In the end, however, such potential dwindles down to wishful thinking and foolish optimism. The UN holds about as much clout to world order as Michael Moore has to Donald Trump.

And, while a world free of nukes would benefit every living thing on this blue ball, you can bet your Plutonium 238 that the nuclear powers of the world are about as likely to disarm as Rush Limbaugh is to marry Rosie O’Donnell.

Jul 27, 2009

Jul 22, 2009

Once again, the progress police have started caterwauling about the dangers of using cell phones in your car. So once again I’m going start ranting AGAINST THEM. (See rant dated April 4th 2008)

In mid-July it was reported on all the major network news programs that a study on the dangers of cell phone use in cars had been liberated from anonymity. The report, created by the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, was actually written in 2002, but evidently kept under wraps until now. Two public interest groups were able to “rescue” the document as a result of a lawsuit citing the Freedom of Information Act. The ensuing hue and cry suggested that the cell phone industry tried to cover-up the report to avoid negative repercussions to their business.

A spokesperson for the industry, when confronted, said that “the industry” felt that the study was vague and “inconclusive”.

And who can blame them. You think the US Army wants to start updating their TV recruitment ads to show flag-draped coffins being unloaded at the airport? Would the NRA welcome a report that shows 88% of children killed or injured by guns are shot in their own homes or the homes of a friend or relative? Or that gun violence kills more American children than Cancer, Pneumonia, Influenza, Asthma and HIV/AIDS combined? Fuck no!

But let’s really look at what the report says before we go jumping on the “BAN”-wagon. According to the above mentioned report, cell phones contributed to 240,000 accidents and 955 fatalities in 2002.

There were approximately 196 million licensed drivers in the United States in 2003. So, right off the bat, we can note that this is a VERY small fraction of the potential accident victims. On an average, there are more than 6 million car accidents on the roads of the US, annually. More than 3 million people get injured due to car accidents per year and in excess of 42,000 deaths due to car accidents every year… and you cell phone fear-mongers want outlaw progress and convenience for 2.3%?

Guess what, Granny? Making a 1 to 2 ton hunk of metal, rubber and glass hurtle down a rock hard surface at speeds between 50 and 100 mph is fucking dangerous! End of story. People WILL die in the name of faster transportation and increased personal mobility. That’s life! That’s progress. You can’t save everyone from themselves. It’s a terror-dome out there people, so you best get used to it. Drive defensively and expect the worst.

The National Sleep Foundation, working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, estimated at least 100,000 car crashes a year are caused by drowsy driving in the U.S., and that sleepy driving accounts for at least 1,550 deaths a year. So I guess we should outlaw late nights out with friends and jail sleepy people.

About 30% of the car accident fatalities can be attributed to driving above the speed limits and 33% and above. Still EVERYONE does it.

And how about this you, freaking FASCISTS…? A new study shows a staggering 80% of all car accidents and 65% of near misses are caused by distracted drivers more focused on their burgers than the road. So where’s the ban on eating in the car?

A separate study of 1,000 drivers, conducted by ExxonMobil Corp. discovered more than 70% of drivers eat while driving - and 83% drink beverages. But the crusaders have targeted the cell phone! Unbelievable! Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Now let me establish this. I don’t work for the cell phone industry. In fact, I don’t even use my cell phone (I’m always leaving it somewhere I can’t remember) so it’s no skin of my ass if they ban the Christly things. Shit, ban it all for my money, I won’t miss a beat. Speaking of which, I wonder how many accidents are caused by playing with the radio or CD player? (11.6%) What about smoking in the car? (1.2%) What about talking to other people in the car? (10.9%) What about putting on makeup in the car? What about driving with your hyperactive Shnauzer in the vehicle? They all rival the cell phone, baby, so better get to banning 'em.

Everywhere you look you’ll see hard admissions on the dangers of these various distractions, but the one that gets all the attentrion... cell phones. Yup, let's ignore all the productivity the things create. Screw that, we WANT the economy in the toilet.

And even though the number of people with cell phones continues to grow, statistics show that car accident fatalities have been witnessing a downward trend in recent years.Let's face it, the majority of car accidents could be avoided if only the drivers would drive more responsibly.

Now, I know the BAN-wagoners will quickly take up bow-up against drinking and driving… and it’s true that, technically, about 40% of car accident fatalities that occur involve a drunken driver according to the Partnership for Safe Driving, a non-profit organization in Washington, D.C.Plus, everybody knows you can't drive that well when you're hammered... although after 6 rum and cokes you'd swear you were better than Steve McQueen in Bullit.

But here’s an interesting breakdown of the survey numbers pointed out by Lawrence Taylor a prominent California attorney:

“During the year 2001, the government estimates that 17,448 – or 41 percent – of the deaths on our nation’s highways were "alcohol-related." In addition, approximately 275,000 – or 16 percent – of the injuries were attributed to alcohol. Since the rate of fatalities is so high, and so much higher than the rate of injuries, let’s take a closer look at that statistic. Of the 17,448 fatalities, 2,555 occurred in crashes where alcohol was detected but no one was over the legal limit. In these crashes, alcohol may not have been the primary factor in the crash; speed, distraction or fatigue could have been. That leaves 14,893 deaths that can actually be attributed to alcohol. However, of these, 1,770 were intoxicated pedestrians and cyclists who walked out in front of the vehicles of sober drivers. They had nothing to do with drunk driving. The Partnership questions why these deaths were thrown in with what is normally presented as a drunk driving statistic. That leaves 13,123 deaths that can be attributed to intoxicated drivers. Of these, a staggering 8,308 were intoxicated drivers who killed themselves in crashes. That leaves 4,815 deaths in which intoxicated drivers killed someone other than themselves….”

Listen, no one is suggesting that we all go drink a Mickey and play Nightrider, but let’s stop the selective witch hunt… or, if we can’t do that, let’s just outlaw driving completely and go back to horses and buggies.

Apr 10, 2009

In the same way that you can find porn for even the most obscure fetish, you can always find a news source that suits your particular belief structure or political bias. There’s news for Christians, (although the words "Christian" and "News" seem somewhat contradictory) aviation enthusiasts, corrosion engineers and even Barry Manilow fans.

So is it really a stretch to believe that there's a news network that indulges right-wingers, neo-cons, and good ol' republicans?

Why should it be hard to understand?

It probably isn’t… but apparently what IS hard is admitting it.

For some strange reason, Fox News, which consistently (if not unabashedly) broadcasts news story with an obvious conservative slant, continues to assert its neutrality.

For certain, there are networks that pay the same homage to liberals, but none that so indignantly assert their fairness in the face of such blatant partiality.

Here’s a random sample of the top political stories posted on FoxNews.com today:

LIZ PEEK: Five Ways Republicans Can Push Back Against the Obama Express

Hollywood Conservatives Encouraged to Come Out of the Closet

Ted Stevens' Judge Angry at Justice Department for Guantanamo Case

Angie Harmon: I'm Not Racist Because I Disagree With Obama

Conservative Groups Declare Obama's Stimulus Bill a War on Prayer

Catholics Outraged With Obama Appointment

MALLORY FACTOR: Why Are Liberals So Worked Up Over South Carolina’s Mark Sanford?

Rove: Biden's a Liar

ANDREA TANTAROS: Tea Parties Will Bring America’s Outrage to a Full Boil

Amnesty + No Border Fence = Disaster

Admittedly there was also a single story about a Texas Congresswoman who made the silly comment that Asians should change their names to be more American, and an, only borderline biased, report on Obama’s plan to “mull” the fate of Chinese detainees at Guantanamo.

If you don’t see the recurring anti-democratic theme running through these headlines, then you are likely as stupid as you look, or simply stuck on the big words – a concussion is also possible, so seek out your physician immediately.

That’s two stories out of 13 that don’t take a conspicuous swipe at liberal politics. Personally I couldn’t give a flying fuck if a station wants to pander to a particular audience – especially an audience with the sheer numbers and buying power of the American right-wing.

But don’t be ridiculous and put the phrase “Fair & Balanced” up on your stinking masthead. That’s just cowardly.

If you’re going to take a side politically, and for your own monetary advantage, don’t be insidious about it. Be proud.

When some slobbering degenerate wants to see pictures of naked pregnant women, he doesn’t buy Playboy… he goes to Naked Pregnant Women.com.

Why shouldn’t a close-minded conservative unapologetically get his news from FOX the “Republican Biased News Source for America”?

C’mon, Fox News, why not dispense with the innuendo and stand up & be counted as a predisposed, right-wing hate-rag and mouthpiece for the ignorant?

You’ve got O’Reilly, Smith, Hannity, and that truckler Colmes has finally had the good sense to stop being the station’s punching bag, so why not announce your affiliation with dignity?

Apr 9, 2009

Chickens around the world cringe in a terror usually reserved for Bo Pilgrim at the mention of these two poultry prepping pashas. Or they surely would if they understood human language.

In one corner, we have Colonel Harland Sanders, inventor of the delicious, salty, heart-clogging Kentucky Fried Chicken. Mmmmm.

And in the other, General Tso, the purported owner of the equally delicious, sweet, heart-clogging, star of every Super Buffet... General Tso’s Chicken. Mmmm-mm.

We can only muse at the gargantuan entertainment value a fight between these two major Chicken domos would possess.

Sabres drawn… issuing grand war cries… and charging together to settle the ultimate question… mano y mano. Such vile bloodsport can only be dreamed about, but let’s just picture it for one succulent, deep-fried moment, shall we?

Ahhh, the carnage… tastier than a snack box… Now where was I?

The pronunciation of zuǒ which is the actual translation of “Tso” is more or less “dzooah” -so if you really want to impress your Chinese friends while in the buffet line sometime, be sure to blurt out something like, “The Kung Pao here is good, but nothing beats their General Dzooah… heh, heh.” (Or maybe not)

Uninterestingly, I actually met “the Colonel” himself when I was a young lad. He was a nice, quiet, man who shook my hand and patted my head. I remember thinking that he must have rubbed his face in beets, because it was so red… and I never had the pleasure of meeting Tso which is good because:

A.) He might have mistaken me for a Taiping rebel and had me executedB.) He would have been over 150 by the time I was old enough to remember meeting him – which could have been akward

Anyway, there can be no-doubt that the Colonel virtually body slams General Tso when it comes to a chicken genius fight. This is chiefly, because the General’s hand in the invention of his sugary chicken dish is evidently dubious.

According to good ol Wikipedia, it’s unclear how the General Tso’s Chicken came to bear the name of Zuo Zongtang (左宗棠, 1812–1885), a Qing Dynasty general from Hunan.

Zuo himself is unlikely ever to have tasted the dish.[2] The dish is not found in Changsha, the capital of Hunan. Nor is it found in Xiangyin, the home of General Tso. Moreover, descendants of General Tso still living in Xiangyin, when interviewed, say that they have never heard of such a dish.[4] Now that’s what I call “an inconvenient truth”.

The fact that “the General” probably never invented this yummy namesake is understandable, as he was probably too busy with the 14 year long Taiping Rebellion, in which an estimated 20 million people died. This can really cut into anyone’s spirit of chicken invention.The Colonel, on the other hand, never had to deal with such distractions because, even though he worked many jobs, including steamboat pilot, insurance salesman, railroad fireman, farmer, and enlisted in the Army as a private when he was only 16, he never really attained the rank of an actual Colonel. In reality, Harland was given the honorary title "Kentucky Colonel" by GovernorRuby Laffoon in 1935.

It’s worth mentioning, however, that though The Colonel’s chicken has made his empire billions of dollars, the tasty General Tso’s chicken has made a few bucks for billions of Chinese food restaurants around the globe.

Sadly, for Zuo Zongtang, it didn’t make him a single Yen. (Though, inadvertently, it probably raises the death toll attributed to the General by a million or so, via complications directly related to the countless cases of diarrhea the dish has caused).

Mar 24, 2009

Over the past year the United States and Russia have been drifting into a hostile relationship, driven by the US decision to install anti-missile defences in eastern Europe, the war in Georgia last August, and the recent fiasco over Russian natural gas supplies to Europe. There was nervous chatter about a new Cold War, but last month US Vice-President Joe Biden said that the Obama administration was going to "press the reset button" in its relations with Russia. Now it has done it.

At the NATO summit on 5 March, the alliance agreed to resume high-level contacts with Moscow in the NATO-Russia Council, which were suspended after the Georgian war. The following day, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Brussels and gave him a mock reset button. "There was a rather confrontational approach towards Russia in the prior administration," she explained.

The notion of a new Cold War was pretty silly anyway, since Russia, unlike the old Soviet Union, is not a "peer competitor" to the United States. It has only half America's population, its former industrial basehas largely evaporated, and the only areas in which it is technologically competitive with the rest of the developed world are defence and space.

Even if there were a NATO-Russian confrontation, it would cause a little local difficulty, not a world-spanning Cold War.

None of the disputes and misunderstandings between Washington and Moscow came from a hostile intent on either side. Take the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defences being built in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Bush administration said that the interceptor missiles and radars of the system were there to intercept nuclear-tipped long-range missiles fired by Iran, and expected the Russians to believe it.

Unsurprisingly, the Russians didn't believe it, because Iran has neither missiles capable of reaching the United States nor any nuclearwarheads to put on them. So Moscow thought the ABM system was really intended to shoot down Russian missiles and thus undermine the country's ability to deter the United States.

Russia worked itself into such a lather about the ABM missiles that President Dmitry Medvedev announced on the day after Barack Obama'selection victory last November that short-range Russian missiles would be installed in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave on the Polish border, to destroy those American bases on short notice. But the ABM missiles are inthe wrong place to intercept Russian ICBMs, and they don't really work anyway.

They have never worked properly, despite tens of billions of dollars poured into the ABM project (aka "Star Wars", National Missile Defence, etc.) during the past quarter-century. The sole practical result of the programme, over the whole of its existence, has been to pour money into the pockets of American defence contractors. But the Russians are too paranoid to accept that, and the programme has such strong support in Congress that the Obama administration is merely "reviewing" it, rather than cancelling it outright.

As for the war in Georgia last August, it was Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili who started it, not the Russians. They responded violently to Georgia's attempt to conquer South Ossetia in a surprise offensive, but they did not stay long in Georgia itself, nor did they seize the capital, Tbilisi, although the road was wide open.

Hillary Clinton still insists that the door is open to Georgian membership in NATO, but that would simply turn it into a two-class alliance. Regardless of what promises they made, NATO countries would never really fight a war with Russia on Georgia's behalf.

It's the same with the quarrel between Russia and Ukraine over the price of gas that left half of eastern Europe freezing in their homes lastDecember. There was incompetence and bloody-mindedness a plenty on both sides, but it wasn't part of some Russian master-plan for world domination.So it is high time to reset the relationship.

There are belligerent minor players on both sides, but the Obama administration seems to have sent out orders to squelch them. Last week, for example, a couple of Russian bombers flew to within a couple of hundred kilometres (miles) of Canada's Arctic coast, a mere five thousand kilometres (three thousand miles) from the Canadian capital.

Canada scrambled fighters to "send a strong signal that they should back off and stay out of our airspace," according to Defence Minister Peter McKay, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper sternly declared that Canada would not be intimidated. "This government has responded every time the Russians have done that," he said. "We will defend our airspace." But the Russians were not in Canada's airspace.

"The Russians have conducted themselves professionally," responded General Gene Renuart, the American officer who commands NORAD, the Canada-US air defence alliance, in an implicit rebuke to the sabre-rattling Canadians. "They have maintained compliance with the international rules of airspace compliance and have not entered the internal airspace of either country."

That is probably just what the Obama administration wants from Russia: a professional relationship between two grown-up countries that know and respect the rules. For a start, Hillary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov committed the two countries to negotiate a new Strategic Arms ReductionTreaty (START) by the end of the year, but more will follow.

Dec 17, 2008

It must be horrible to work in “Hollywood”. I know most people think it would be cool. One long coke-binge with the beautiful people... but I bet it really isn’t.

Here’s the accumulation of the world’s artistic creativity all rammed into one place like a Wal-Mart on Black Friday. And every star-struck wannabe from Bellingham to Key Largo, who’s adequately jacked-up on self-delusion, wants a piece of the action.

It makes you wish more people suffered from agoraphobia.

Then, from the Hollywood-spawned pit of abomination, (aka "TV") crawls the “Reality Show” amidst an already vacuous, miasmic, stench of game shows and too many Docterin’ & Lawyerin’ dramas. And, magically, the average writer is instantly reduced to level of a subway busker or Strip hooker.

It’s enough to make a reasonably intelligent person want to smash themselves in the face with the back end of a claw hammer.

But it doesn’t stop there – the monkey shines continue as “Hollywood” rolls out their parade of cliché-ridden cop movies, unnecessary remakes and desperately written sequels.

Does Get Smart REALLY need to be RE-MADE? Is any lawyer on the face of the earth as glib and spontaneous as James Spader? Is any police department filled with such good looking flatfoots as CSI New York? Fucking doubtful. Escapism is one thing -- delusion is quite another.

I went to an ER about 6 months ago. Not one person there was as good looking as the people on the show of the same name... and every person I talked to had the personality of an uncooked lentil. Not to mention that they moved at the speed of paint and were, for the most part, only talented at looking clueless... or bored.

I’d like to go to a hospital like the ones on TV (Gray’s Anatomy, ER, etc) where all the doctors and interns are beautiful and smart and don’t act the way the place usually smells.

Incidentally, I was in the ER because I had just accidentally watched a few minutes of The Game. It sent me into violent fits of mouth vomits and my legs fell off. – just fell off! And they started hopping individually towards the TV. They instinctively tried to kick the TV, but I grappled for the remote and turned off the set. My disembodied limbs fell lifelessly to the rug and I dragged myself to the car and drove semi-conscious to the ER.

The Game is an evil show that is about a group of women who all have relationships with professional football players. (Wow, I can really relate...not at all) Defiled with ridiculously placed canned laughter, it leaves you confused and wanting to kill puppies... then yourself.

Seriously... beware of this show. Don’t be channel surfing anywhere near the CW Fridays around 8:30 pm.

Better to stab yourself in the arm and spend an hour sewing the wound shut, than to chance seeing this slop because your finger slipped on the remote unwittingly.

Dec 13, 2008

It’s hard to fully perceive the mess we’re in. We little people… and by that I mean those of us who make under $250,000 per year, but who make up the lion’s share of the population in North America.

The filthy bastards who make more than this have decided that it is their divine providence to pass judgment on the rest of us. Amidst their three hour lunches, corporate welfare, and bi-weekly trips to the beach house on the coast, they point accusatory fingers at the common man. Charging that it is some lack of acumen or grey matter that keeps the rest of us from enjoying the decadence they do.

Check this out someday. Follow one of these sanctimonious fat cats around and count how many times they put pen to paper-- you’ll find they don’t do it much.(and signing checks does not count. Any 10 year old can sign a check. Just ask Macaulay Culkin and the rest of his brothers.)

How do they pull this Enron-sized scam? Because we let them. Rampant throughout the population live germs like “Joe the plumber” who, when not acting the dull-witted toady of the elite, shills his American dream with a level of delusion that is nothing less that staggering.

For every fairy tale of a “beggar on the street who owns a Mercedes” there is a real and more treacherous tale of $50 billion Bernard Madoff "Ponzi” schemes, CEO graft, Goldman Sachs' taxpayer-funded bonuses and Fortune 500 offshore tax evasion.

It’s all bullshit and we eat it with a serving ladle.

Car companies spend millions on advertising instead of building good cars, then ask for bailouts from the government. Insurance companies spend millions trying to fear monger the dangers of universal healthcare to research and development at a witless public. Meanwhile the govt spends tenfold on weapons.

Don't kid yourself, research and development keeps the big drug companies competitive and in business. They are not about to stop it. However, the Insurance companies are praying you believe they will... just because of the emergence of some government run healthcare.

Is it the preferred philosophy to say "tough beans" for the average sick person as long as we keep the big drug companies healthy?

Many companies in countries that have universal healthcare still continue to do valuable research & development.

Perhaps (and I’m just spit-balling here)we should spend a few billion less on war efforts and "possible" threats to human lives and spend a little more on R&D grants for KNOWN threats like Cancer, Heart Disease and Alzheimer's.

In 2006 Cancer killed something like 2.1 million Americans and continues to post those types of casualties.

Compare that to these 2005 numbers:

U.S. citizens worldwide killed as a result of incidents of terrorism: 56

U.S. citizens worldwide injured as a result of incidents of terrorism: 17

U.S. citizens worldwide kidnapped as a result of incidents of terrorism: 11

Individuals worldwide killed as a result of incidents of terrorism: 14,602

Even adding the well over 4,000 Americans who were killed in the Iraq War, you have a major statistical imbalance in favor of Cancer - and that's NOT counting other major diseases.

Favoring the fight against "potential” attacks to America versus the fight against proven and fully active threats like Cancer is flawed logic.

It's time to throw away the political partisanship and get logical about what threats America throws all its money at. At the very least, there needs to be balance. Cure cancer and suddenly dealing with out of control healthcare costs doesn't seem so impossible - does it?

Dec 12, 2008

The NFL Players Association filed a grievance on Tuesday challenging the suspension and fine given to Plaxico Burress by the New York Giants after the receiver accidentally shot himself in a nightclub more than a week ago.

I know the gun goofs hold their right to own penis extensions as dear as their grandmothers, but Second Amendment be damned... can we at least agree that if you shoot yourself with your own gun, YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE ANYMORE?

Oct 23, 2008

In fairness, we never really did get any oil from all this military muscle flexing.

We'd have been better off just finding some OPEC 10% off coupons and saving a few thousand American lives... but hey it's all blood under the bridge now. Let's move forward.

No matter what happens in November, the country can't possibly do worse. Both candidates make "The Dub" look like my pet goat.

But you'd paste his face on any picture and you had insta-hilarity. I mean look at those close set beady eyes...that chimpish mouth. Man, you couldn't even PLAN it to be more amusing.

Bushie-boy goes down with an economy in shambles -- Bin Laden still on the lam -- the arctic ice shelf a little smaller --and gay marriage firmly banished to the wings. All the while pointing an accusatory finger at the "dreaded Liberal" and "socialism" -- words he can barely pronounce let alone understand.

So now Georgie can move to Dallas, a stronghold of right-wing ignorance, misguided elitism and barely closeted racism.He’ll buy a big mansion in Highland Park and do some work for charity, but my guess is he’ll spend the rest of his days mostly incognito – in hiding from anything that exposes too much of his mediocre personality to the public.

And you can’t say he hasn’t earned that respite.

He’s taken a beating through the years, though mostly through is own devices, so I have to believe the ol’ frat boy is feeling like a motorcycle (2 tired).

The pure incompetence of W’s regime will be blamed on the Left by 50% of the nation. There’s no escaping it. Republicans never admit defeat and are incapable of holding themselves responsible for anything they do.

The recession will end eventually, and on that day George may poke his head out of his mansion and say, “See? I told you there was no recession.” But by then the hounds will be at some other slob’s door, and it might just be accepted as gospel.

Speaking of gospel, I was looking at some online poll that asked the proverbial question:

Was Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

Though a decent percentage of people asserted that he was neither, (or that there was no way of knowing) the rest slid down the greasy poles of political bias.

Several posited that not only was Jesus a Republican, but that he was also very much alive and walking the earth. This type of logic is comparable to the droolings of Mark David Chapman just before he finally went off his nut.It’s a hilarious question though. What concept could Jesus have of the political differences between Dems versus GOPs - or Hummers versus Volkswagens - or any other 21st Century concept?Never mind that nonsense! There are more compelling questions to answer… and we’re running out of time.

For instance:

What would Elvis use? A Blackberry or an iPhone?

What Big-12 school would Abraham Lincoln have preferred? One with a good Poli-Sci program or one where he could make the Basketball team?

What would Billy Graham do if he was instantly transported to Jerusalem during the time of Jesus?

A.) Get beheaded instantlyB.) Get beheaded after a brief, but brutal, round of tortureC.) Meet Jesus and get in to an argument with him over religionD.) Run and hide in a cave, sniveling like a little girlE.) Have his tongue cut out for spewing BS in a strange language, and then get beheaded